Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for free home to school transport for her son. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for free home to school transport for her son. Ms X’s son was offered a place at their second choice school. The Council refused the application for school transport because he is not attending the nearest available school. Ms X says the closer schools are also more than 3 miles from their home and would meet the criteria for school transport. Ms X feels they have been treated unfairly as some children attending the school have been given school transport. The decision is causing the family financial strain, stress and disruption to their routine.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Council’s under-16 home to school transport policy - 2025/26 academic year.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Ms X applied for free home to school transport for her son. The Council refused the application because Ms X’s son is not attending the nearest suitable school. This means he does not meet the criteria for free home to school transport set out in its policy.
9. The Council’s home to school transport policy states that pupils aged 8-16 attending a preferred school will be eligible for free transport if that school is the nearest available school and is three miles or more from home. It says parents have the right to express a preference for a school other than the nearest suitable or catchment school. This is known as parental preference. However, the transport policy does not make any additional free travel provision for pupils to attend preferred schools.
10. Ms X appealed the Council’s decision via the second stage appeal panel. It considered the information Ms X provided. It found the application had been decided in line with the Council’s policy and maintained the decision to refuse the application. It found there were no exceptional circumstances to cause it to agree the application outside of the policy. It clearly explained its decision to Ms X.
11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council here to warrant an investigation. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was right or wrong. Instead, we look at the processes the Council followed to make its decision.
12. There is no sign of fault in the way the Council considered and decided Ms X’s application. It considered the information Ms X provided at application and appeal stages and it reached a decision in line with the eligibility criteria set out in its policy. Ms X exercised parental preference in choosing a school as second choice preference for her son which is further away from their home than more than 10 other schools. As a result, the school he attends is not the nearest available school. Had Ms X placed one of the much closer schools as second choice on her son’s school application he would have been awarded a place at a closer school. This means he does not meet the criteria for free home to school transport.
13. Ms X says other families have been awarded transport for the school her son attends and questions whether her application has been considered fairly. The granting of school transport will depend on the circumstances of each application and the order of preference set out in each child’s application. The Council has previously explained this in its correspondence on the matter. This does not indicate sign of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman